Challenge to atheists: I find your lack of faith disturbing!

[Aractus]

Really? You're going to reply with the tu quoque/red herring combo? You're not going to defend your fringy beliefs that the dates of Gospel authorship can be pushed earlier than 50 CE but reply with "oh yeah, well, so are you on this different topic"?

Fine. We do know these sacred documents changed over time. We do know that interpolation was a problem with sacred documents. We do know that pseudo-epigraphy was a problem and even you admit that with the Pastoral Epistles. Since out debate on that subject is merely about the scale of the problem, I think I'm on solid ground. You, on the other hand, have only flimsy rationalizations to justify your ridiculous early dates of authorship (ala, "Gee, the story says... so it must be..." ).

No, once again you're trowing two things together from different places, and claiming they're the same.

As for "changed over time", that argument is dead and settled. You can't show me any instances of where a verse has been intentionally removed, can you?

Ehrman continually talks about Mark being written c. late 50's AD. All I'm proposing is a date that is 1 decade and a few years sooner, that's it. I'm not the only one - at all - who thinks this way. Just because "most" scholars date Mark c. 55-59 AD (and many even say 70 AD+) doesn't mean that all do, or that everyone has to agree, or that it is settled and closed for debate!

When I said "the burden of proof is in your backyard", it's to suggest you need to do better than "nuh-uh-uh".

Why? I'm not proposing that Matthew is written first, I'm simply stating that it is possible.

Q...
is...
a...
hypothetical...
document.

I know this....

Are you done? OK, can you answer my question now? Can you name for me one (1) professional translation that lists "before" instead of "during" or "when" in the body of Luke 2:2?

I already answered the question. It's not the translator's job to "fix" the Bible. They translate the way they feel is best, and they agree that the best way to read that sentence in the original Greek is "after"; however they also agree that "before" also makes sense.

The words "before" and "during" convey two very different meanings. I don't speak Koine Greek but even if there was a word in that language that could have either meaning, there must be a contextual way of distinguishing the two, else the language would not be useful in communication.

Yes the context was, as I've explained many times, that Luke's readers already knew which census he was talking about, so he uses a very brief reference to it and doesn't elaborate. If his readers didn't know what the fuck he was talking about, he would have elaborated further - ie "there was a census, one that less meaningful or important than the one under Quirinius ..."

Therefore, in translating Luke 2:2, we do not just shrug our shoulders and go with whichever word, "before" or "during", suits us better. "Luke" (or whoever the author was) intended either one or the other. One translation is right and the other is wrong. Our dilemma is determining which.

No you're wrong. A translation isn't "wrong" because it doesn't convey what the author intended, so long as it does convey as best as can be done what is written. It's not a translator's job to work out exactly what Luke was thinking and intending with each stroke of the pen - such an exercise involves guesswork and assumption, and leads down the path to lunacy! Yes they can employ this theory modestly here and there, but not when the writer is including throw-away comments that are brief and employ the clear assumption that the reader (or rather listeners) needed need too much detail.

If you want an internal argument, consider Acts 5:37, which refers to the census under Quirinius (you can go and check that scholars agree with this), notice the completely different language used to refer to it?

At the end of the day you have Luke referring to two separate census's, and just because the text of Luke 2:2 reads a certain way organically, doesn't mean that he had to have erred or that I don't have good reason to trust the accuracy of Luke. If this was all we had to go one for his accuracy it wouldn't look too favourable for him, however Luke mentions many names and places that both Matthew and Mark omit making it far more difficult to conger up a convincing forgery that would withstand modern scrutiny, and yet those names and places have been found to be accurate, they're externally corroborated.

So I'm perfectly comfortable having a few of these ambiguous parts here and there, that really remain "unsolved". If you believe he erred based on this one single verse, and then you're willing to distrust the bulk of both of his works, then that's what you believe and you've set up impossible conditions to change your mind.

Interesting. What makes you say so and not that "first" refers to the first direct taxation of Judea, since Rome had only recently acquired direct control of the province and wouldn't have administered such a census while it was a client kingdom ruled by the Herodian family?

As I said, Luke 2:2 isn't "simply" solved, but it remains a nonsensical reading in the context that Quirinius administered one census and that was in 6AD ...